Mental problems make it more likely that a person will find themselves in a demographic group that Democrats focus on appealing to -- the poor, the unemployed, the unmarried, the homeless, etc. So it would be surprising if people who considered themselves Democrats weren't less mentally healthy, on average. Simply put, mental illness makes it more likely that you'll wind up poor and downtrodden, and the Democrats focus on appealing to the poor and downtrodden.

With the exception of the true nutzos, what is called mental illness today is simply someone going through the blues. The blues come and then they lift. All people who haven't been brainwashed by the age of therapy know this. And since conservatives are, for the mostpart, more resistant to the current ethos of victumtude than liberals, fewer conservatives see themselves as sick and in DESPERATE NEED OF HELP!!!

Republicans believe that they are in control of their lives and can make it in the world without govenment help. This is the reason for both optimism (good sense of their own mental heath) and a feeling that much of what the government does is not worth while.

I think it is self-evident that sane people should judge themselves to be mentally healthy.

The tricky part is the distribution of "nuts" who think they are fine, v. those who realize they are not fine. For instance, people with depression mostly do notice that they are sad a lot while people with narcissistic personality disorder mostly think they are fine (or rather perfect).

It is entirely possible that the levels of mental health between Republicans and Democrats are the same. Just the kinds of mental illness differ between the groups and this leads to differences in the self-reporting.

What? I'm not saying that Democratic ideals appeal to crazy people. I'm saying that Democratic ideals appeal to classes of people -- the poor, the unemployed, etc -- that have a disproportionate share of the mentally ill. Untreated depression, for example, makes it hard to hold a job. Unemployed people are more likely to vote for Democrats, because Democrats directly target them. So, presto -- Democrats end up with a larger share of the clinically depressed.

Positive mental health grows on Republicans like a colony of E.Coli on room temperature Canadian beef after being touched by the teenage waiter who just used the toilet but didn't wash his hands even though the sign clearly says to.

AlphaLiberal said..."Referring to the medical condition of mental illness as "nuts" is really ignorant."

So I guess you don't call anyone a wingnut then. And maybe you could explain all the lefty websites that call me a nut ... and call anyone conservative a wingnut. Is "nut" an impermissible expression or not? Are we allowed to say "I'm going nuts trying to get this done" and similar colloquialisms? You want to say "nut" and "nuts" are new n-words? You'd better be consistent then. Never say it again. I think it's a standard colloquialism that is no more insulting than saying crazy, though obviously "crazy" and "nuts" are not medical terms.

The real news--even Democrats know they're not well. At least that's a start. It's rather obvious that the wing of politics that romanticizes and empowers victimhood will attract those who feel victimized or are otherwise unhappy about themselves and the world.

The right, on the other hand, which emphasizes personal responsibility and and actual individual freedom, naturally appeals to people who are not threatened by that message. Those struggling with mental illness, depression, paranoia and narcissism are not exactly ready to embrace ideas which, by their very nature, promote concepts that require confidence, self-esteem, and and expectation of personal success.

Now the question for 2008 becomes, which group of people know who's best to run this country--those who personally identify as mentally ill, or those who do not?

Oh, c'mon. There are plenty of Democrats who are not threatened by personal responsibility or individual freedom. And there are plenty of Republicans who suffer from mental illness.

This poll--to whatever degree its valid and replicable, and I haven't researched that--appears to mostly be addressing self-identification and self-rating.

I don't see how that necessarily has anything to do with actual incidence of mental ill-health in the respective populations.

Those struggling with mental illness, depression, paranoia and narcissism are not exactly ready to embrace ideas which, by their very nature, promote concepts that require confidence, self-esteem, and and expectation of personal success.

I just don't see how someone can make that broad-brush, categorical of a statement. I mean, based on what?

"There are plenty of Democrats who are not threatened by personal responsibility or individual freedom."

I am willing to accept that, as a statistical certainty, in a nation of 300 million + "plenty" could be impressive as a raw number. But as a percentage of the whole, I think it not so plenty at all, else their political party would in fact run more candidates who are not threatened by personal responsibility or individual freedom, or pander to those who are. All the leading Democrat candidates for president position themselves as victims, defenders of victims, or as advocates or defenders of policies which shift personal responsibility to the collective, thereby eroding individual freedom.

Unless you want to abort your unborn child, in which you're as free as the all-to-constraining law will allow.

revenant: Mental problems make it more likely that a person will find themselves in a demographic group that Democrats focus on appealing to -- the poor, the unemployed, the unmarried, the homeless, etc.

AlphaLiberal How in the world do you know Chad Vader is a liberal?! And with the (sometimes) exception of The Onion none of the rest of those you listed are very funny. Robin Williams? Man is this 2007 or 1987?

I guess Chris Rock is kinda funny as long as you kinda dislike white people.

A overeducated doctor at the asylum decided to take his inmates to a baseball game. For weeks in advance, he coached his patients to respond to his commands. When the day of the game arrived, everything seemed to be going well. As the national anthem started, the doctor yelled, ''Up nuts!'' And the inmates complied by standing up. After the anthem he yelled, ''Down nuts!'' And they all sat. After a home run he yelled, ''Cheer nuts!'' And they all broke into applause and cheers. Thinking things were going very well, he decided to go get a beer and a hot dog, leaving his assistant in charge. When he returned there was a riot in progress. Finding his assistant, he asked what happened. The assistant replied, ''Well...everything was fine until some guy walked by and yelled, ''PEANUTS!''

"To me this just seems corollary to the apparent zero-tolerance for any kind of self doubt (or at least the appearance thereof) among today's Republicans, perhaps best exemplified by our President."

This reminds me of the complaints I've heard about the hyper-macho-ness of the Republicans which is supposed to be hiding severe feelings of sexual inadequacy. It seems to be an entirely manufactured thing. But despite that, you may have a point about those on the right not rushing to admit they have problems.

The opposite side of which is the fetishism attached to mental illness on the left. A person gets points for it, I think. You start to think that no one wants to be left out. Someone had a bad childhood they still suffer from... well, so do I. And a dysfunctional family... I remember that fad. Both my liberal Aunts complained that they suffered all their lives because their parents *didn't* fight. Or they suffer from depression, who doesn't?

Is it healthier to deny problems or to wallow in them?

Still, if I feel like I'm mentally healthy that is, in fact, my outlook.

People who are monogamous even before marriage report that they have satisfying sex lives more often than those who have had and have multiple partners.

Does it *matter* that they don't know better? If they're satisfied then they're satisfied.